To receive any public questions, statements or petitions submitted in accordance with the Constitution. Further information on the requirements for submitting these is available to view at the following link:-
https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeID=151&Info=1&bcr=1
The deadline for the submission of a public questions is 4 clear working days before the meeting.
The deadline for the submission of a public statement is midday the working day before the meeting.
The deadline for the submission of a petition is 10 working days before the meeting.
Minutes:
A – Public Questions
Public Question from Dr Martin Rodger
The Council Leader reportedly justifies maximum Council Tax increases pointing to £6.2M cumulative Council Tax savings (1). This £6.2M also appeared in council papers (2) explaining that an extra £10.1M Council Tax income was possible in 2022/23 but without explaining whose decisions enabled this reduction.
This £10.1M in 2022/23 appears to comprise £1.8M enabled by Shadow Authority decisions four years ago, £2.8M and £7.8M from Unity Alliance decisions, the latter adopted by the current Conservative administration and finally minus, so not a saving, -£2.3M from this administration.
Can this calculation (3) be confirmed as correct? Or can the actual calculation be properly explained?
Response by Councillor Mike Greene, Portfolio Holder for Finance, Net Zero and Transport
It is possible that Dr Rodger has not quite grasped what this statement he refers to in the Budget Report is showing. It demonstrates that over the course of the first seven years of the merged BCP Council, we will have kept £62 million in Council Tax Payers’ pockets compared with what would have been the case if we had increased bills to the levels allowed by Government.
This has been made possible only because of the savings generated by the merger of the three Councils: That merger was supported by the Conservatives, and opposed by the Liberal Democrats, the Poole Peoples’ Party and the Christchurch Independents – who made up the vast majority of the so-called Unity Alliance. Had they succeeded in their opposition to LGR, our Council Tax payers would collectively have been £62 million worse off.
Public Question from Jackie Delahunty (Being read by John Sprackling)
The council development advisory company FuturePlaces is tasked with assisting your Big Plan project. Do you believe the working Capital Loan of £8m the council granted FuturePlaces was in the best interest of BCP residents? Surely any fees paid to FuturePlaces for a full business case that subsequently does not progress to completion will result in those funds having to be written off by the council, ultimately risking the funds for essential services for local residents.
Response by Councillor Philip Broadhead, Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Development, Growth, Regeneration and Transformation
FuturePlaces is the councils wholly owned regeneration arm and functions in much the same way as the councils other council owned entities.
In order to facilitate its day to day activities the council provides a draw down facility or working capital loan as it is sometimes called, in much the same way that the council department is allocated a budget, the key difference however is that because FuturePlaces operate as a company whose work is tied to regeneration projects where appropriate we can then fully capitalise the cost which would simply not be possible if this work was done by a council department. This then means Mr Chairman that the projects are paying for the work and not the council taxpayers revenue budget.
If projects are not taken forward the cost is either to be absorbed by FuturePlaces other activity or in the last instance covered by the councils revenue budget but remember prior to FuturePlaces creation all regeneration costs were covered by the revenue account. This format saves the revenue account millions of pounds and enables us to get the best people in the council working on our regeneration place making and making the projects themselves cover that cost.
Furthermore, this facility has enabled FuturePlaces to move more quickly into developing outline business cases on a wider range of projects we want to bring forward at pace, some of which are on the agenda this evening.
Mr Chairman if we did not have FuturePlaces at all we would have two options, either find the millions of pounds from the revenue account to fund the activity in house up front which is what used to happen or stop any activity on council owned land, and it seems pretty straight forward to me what the right answer is. Mr Chairman later on this agenda two liberal democrat candidates looking to stand in the forthcoming elections are asking a similar question albeit dressed up as a statement and implying that the repayment of this draw down facility is a bad thing and somehow backwards. Is it backwards to get our regeneration moving with the full recent support of partners such as homes England, I don’t agree. What I do think is backward is wannabe candidates somehow suggesting that you can have your cake and eat it, paying for regeneration from the revenue account without impacting services.
Mr Chairman by getting regeneration done we’re working in collaboration with key government partners and reinvesting in the councils strategic assets rather than giving up on them so yes I do believe this arrangement is in the best interests of the residents of the BCP area and we are seeing the fruits of that approach come forward this evening.
Public Question from Jackie Delahunty (Being read by John Sprackling)
In the unlikely event your recent letter dated 3rd March 2023 to Lee Rowley MP has drawn a line under the financial scrutiny of BCP council, there will be a Government External Assurance Review of the council. Can you confirm the debt threshold has increased to £1.344 billion and if so is this not likely to be seen as very high risk, with the most serious outcome being the council is likely to be made insolvent?
Response by Councillor Mike Greene, Portfolio Holder for Finance, Net Zero and Transport
There seems to be some misunderstanding about debt thresholds. While, for example, BCP’s self-imposed limit stands at £1.344 bn, its actual level of borrowing is only a third of that – around £500m.
Further, as we confirmed in November, no new borrowing is permitted unless a very strict test is met: namely, it must be supported by a fully self-financing business case. This means that there can be no debt taken on if there is any requirement from the Council’s general fund to finance it. An example of what is allowed is the £10m borrowed this year to replace part of the Council’s vehicle fleet with Zero emissions vehicles, generating a fuel cost saving which more than covers the costs of financing the debt.
If there is any question about the Council’s ability to pay its interest and its debt, I would refer Ms Delahunty and others to the Financial Resilience Index of local authorities published by CIPFA, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. This compares the key financial risk ratios of councils and shows that BCP’s interest payable as a percentage of net revenue expenditure is just about the lowest of all unitary authorities in the country.
So – no: neither our debt held, nor our debt ceiling is seen as high risk, and no, the Council will not become insolvent.
Public Question from John Sprackling
In answer to my Public Question at last week's Cabinet meeting, the Leader informed me that the Council would be seeking an Appropriation of the Beach Road car park for development, subject to public consultation, using this method to set aside the Covenants.
The Association requests that the Appropriation procedure should precede the proposed move of the project to a Full Business Case stage and, in so doing, committing costs estimated at £586k.
This would avoid the potential wasting of Council taxpayers money on an abortive activity.
Please provide this assurance.
Response by Councillor Philip Broadhead
The formal appropriation of a council site is an administrative procedure carried out prior to any formal development taking place. In the case of Beach Road, the proposed FuturePlaces project timeline envisages the council advertising its intention to appropriate the residential site in autumn 2023 and the responses received to the advert will inform a second Cabinet report which will seek approval to appropriate the south side for planning purposes prior to a disposal for development.
In reaching a decision Cabinet will be asked to carefully consider an assessment of the objections received and should Cabinet resolve to appropriate prior to granting planning permission then it will proportionate and lawful in those circumstances.
Public Question from Alex McKinstry
On 6 February Cllr Mellor, then leader of this Council, walked out of a meeting of the Corporate and Community Overview and Scrutiny Committee midway through being reminded of his need to apologise to that Committee. That in turn was a sanction laid down by the Standards Committee for previous discourtesy. A motion of censure was proposed from the floor, but this was resisted by the Chair, Cllr Lawrence Williams, who said: "I'LL DROP A NOTE." It has since transpired that Cllr Williams did not in fact communicate with Cllr Mellor about his conduct. Why did he not do so?
Response by Councillor Lawrence Williams, Chairman of the Corporate and Community Overview and Scrutiny Committee
At the meeting I had intended to drop a note but on advice, but on advice I was told that this was not for me to pursue but that it should be referred to the Standards Board. Circumstances have subsequently changed and so I took no action.
Thank you.
Public Question from Philip Stanley Watts
Could the cabinet member tell me why the owner of the trx frame has been told to remove his weight training equipment as it should remain on Boscombe seafront as its benefiting many in the local community.
Response by Councillor Jane Kelly, Portfolio Holder for Communities, Health and Leisure
The TRX 360 equipment was originally installed without permission. However, in order to show support for a popular facility we did allow it to remain for a trial period whilst alternative options were considered. We recognise the benefits of TRX training, but this is specialised exercise equipment that is only used for 1 or 2 hours each day, benefitting a relatively small number of customers who pay either per session or monthly.
It is not openly available for public use and has been installed on one of our busiest parts of the beach, obstructing views from the promenade and adjacent restaurant so therefore is not the best place for it to be sited.
The Council is committed to enabling residents and visitors to the beach to participate in sports, exercise and well-ness activities which we have shown by our allowing this piece of equipment to remain in place for approximately one year. We are also committed to developing new opportunities for this type of recreation.
We do however have statutory responsibilities for the management of public open space & beaches, and financial regulations which govern our approach to offering commercial opportunities, which need to be considered.
We are therefore continuing to work with the owner of the business to try to identify a more suitable location for his equipment which can work for both he and the Council, subject to approvals and open market tender. We want him to be able to continue to offer the fitness provision to the clients that he has made relationships with and who clearly wish to continue.
These options potentially include the exciting new developments near Toft Steps Zig Zag, where last year we opened a brand new freely accessible outdoor fitness park and are currently constructing the ‘Box Park’ to support start-up businesses, creating jobs and economic growth within leisure & tourism in Boscombe. There will also be opportunities in other parts of the beach which are more suitable for fitness equipment to fit in to the surroundings.
I wish all the best for the future of this business and for others who may also offer innovative and health giving opportunities along our fabulous coastline.
Public Question from Adam Sofianos
"Politicians (and the party they stand for) should be accountable for their decisions, good and bad."
Not my words, but those of leader Phil Broadhead, on social media last year.
His predecessor, Cllr Drew Mellor, was directed by the Standards Committee to apologise to this Council, after making "misleading statements" to members and residents, about a critical council matter: the Beach Hut Budget scheme.
Despite attending Full Council since then, Cllr Mellor has failed to apologise.
Does the leader agree that Cllr Mellor should accept the Committee’s verdict, and finally apologise tonight, to Council, and by extension to the public?
Response by Councillor Philip Broadhead, Leader of the Council
When a complaint is considered, the Standards Board comes to the conclusion and makes a recommendation, sometimes it’s in line with the professional advice of the independent member, sometimes as it happened only a couple of weeks ago it disregards the independent advice and reaches a different recommendation. In the event that the Standards Board requests action from a member it is up to that Member and him or her alone to choose whether or not to go along with that request.
In the case we have heard with Councillor Dedman for example she did not agree with the Standards Boards conclusion on the complaint against her and for that reason felt it would not be appropriate to accede to its request to make an apology.
A further point relates to the motivation of those who make complaints against Members, whilst some Members Mr Chairman myself-included have always chosen not to make those complaints even when there has been an obvious breach other Members and indeed a handful of members of the public, including I am led to believe some present tonight have clearly sought to try and extract political advantage for themselves either as election candidates or their parties in doing so.
In my opinion when one considers the resulting waste of officer time and so cost to the council taxpayer what seems really a shame is that there is no recourse to challenge that behaviour and ask them to apologise.
The Chairman invited Councillor Dedman to address the Council as Councillor Dedman had been named during the response to the previous question and had indicated to speak.
Councillor Dedman addressed the Council
Thank you Mr Chairman, I wouldn’t bring it up normally but I have been named in this discussion about Standards, I would just like to say that the naming is totally incorrect and I did apologise to the Council and in fact the then Leader told me that that was satisfactory. I apologised to everybody on Twitter who had clearly seen the offensive tweet, I apologised for offending people. What I refused to do was apologise to an anonymous complainant, one person who chased me round twitter, and I was also vilified by the Standards Committee and I would like that to be noted.
B – Public Statements
Public Statement from Daniel Parkin
Following an FOI request, BCP officers recently disclosed information relating to FuturePlaces’ “working capital loan”.
This shows that almost half the £8m loan has been taken, with £3.5m already drawn down. This is before work on Full Business Cases has even begun.
The same disclosure also revealed that FuturePlaces has not repaid any of this loan.
Yet the new Leader appears to give the opposite impression. Recently on social media he claimed that FuturePlaces “are already paying it back.”
‘I trust as there is confusion in this matter, that the council will clarify this with the public immediately’.
Public Statement from John Ainsworth (Chair of Churches Together in Poole) [To be read out by the Chief Executive]
CTIP welcomes the firm commitment by Cabinet to reinstate Poole Crematorium as a working crematorium under Option 3. We trust that the installation work will be completed in time so that Poole Crematorium will be operating as a working crematorium by the summer of 2024 as envisaged by the decision of the Cabinet in September 2022.
Public Statement from Adam Sofianos
Tonight, Council is asked to “commit costs” for two FuturePlaces projects. Those costs are over £2m, in addition to £419,000 already committed. These would remain committed regardless of outcome.
FuturePlaces has drawn down almost half its loan already. These plans, plus others coming, may exhaust the £8m facility.
Many residents are concerned about FuturePlaces: whether it has the appropriate governance, scrutiny, transparency, financial responsibility.
And after the Beach Hut Budget, many residents fear another fiscal fiasco.
Surely this is no time to gamble. I ask you to allow an appropriate review of FuturePlaces itself, before these costs are committed.
Public Statement from Julie Redman [To be read out by the Chief Executive]
Councillor Broadhead was asked a question about the Bounce Back Challenge Fund at a Council meeting in November 2022. Councillor Broadhead said “Recent independent analysis of this array of support has been highly positive”.
This was misleading. A FOI request revealed Councillor Broadhead was referring to an internal audit report from 2021.
A summary report of the scheme has just been published showing minimal financial analysis.
Multiple concerns have been raised about the scheme but nobody has checked if Councillor Broadhead and Chris Shephard made the right decisions.
There could be 109 failed projects and £3 million wasted, nobody knows.